modern human genetic diversity are
not relevant to total genetic diversity.
The estimates do not account for
Neandertals or Denisovans, which
have been shown by both genetics
and baraminology to be human.
This creates a special problem
for Hugh Ross’s ideas on human
origins, which rest on the idea that
humanity arose from a single pair
around 50,000– 70,000 years ago that
excluded Neandertals and Denisovans.
Nonetheless, it is an open question as
to whether this affects the evolutionary
argument.

Moreover, population growthestimates are consistent with biblicaltimeframe:“For now, we can definitelyemphasize that ancient populationsize estimates support a rapidpopulation growth within less thanone thousand generations. Thatwould be less than twenty thousandyears ago, which indicates that evenunder the conventional populationgenetics model, most of the geneticvariation in the human populationis very recent” (p. 89).

Wood and Francis note some
important observations that help us
see why the creationist need not think
the Bible is inconsistent with the
data. However, the critique of
the objections is considerably
milder than even the previous
chapter. Showing that the Bible
is not inconsistent with the data
does not show that it can offer
a probable explanation of the
data. However, there is more to
be said positively for the biblical
framework, and against the
evolutionary framework, than
Wood and Francis say.
15 Their
method is also a dangerous
apologetic gambit. If the
creationist reader knows that the
objections they are struggling
with have problems, they will be
less tempted to embrace them.

By not engaging in the ‘evolutionvs creation’ slugging match, theauthors blunt the effectiveness of theirapologetic for the average creationistreader.

The Fall and fallen reading

Grant Horner, Associate Professor
of English at The Master’s College,
reflects on the literary nature of
Genesis 3, and why people often
misread it. Genesis and the whole
historical Creation-Fall-Redemption
plotline of Scripture evince a clear
historical intent. A metaphorical
Adam makes for a meaningless Jesus.
As such, the only ethical way to read
Genesis 3 is as history.

But if Genesis 3 is so clear, why
is it that “no amount of evidence will
convince someone predetermined
to consider this unsophisticated”
(p. 106)? Genesis 3 points out that
we’re not ethical. We’re fallen. Horner
argues that Genesis 3 becomes the
explanation for people’s tendency to
misread it—a literal Fall is too simple
and sobering for sinners to see.

Detractors could easily see this
chapter as diagnosing a problem that
doesn’t exist. That however would
ignore the previous three chapters.

The church has historically seen
Adam’s role as the originator of sin,
death, and suffering in creation as
the bad news that makes the good
news of Jesus good (figure 2). Former
Professor of Theology at The Master’s
College Paul Thorsell reviews the
doctrine of Original Sin, and explores
whether Scripture and church have
rested so much theological weight on
the historical Adam.

First, Thorsell overviews the history of the doctrine of Original Sin.

He shows that there was in even the
earliest church fathers the notion of
racial solidarity in Adam, and that
his sin resulted in us having corrupt
natures and being subject to death.
East and West parted ways over the
issue of inherited guilt. However, in
their own ways both East and West
undoubtedly retained the importance
of Adam as the historical reason why
sin and death reign over us all.
Only in the last few centuries,
because of Enlightenment
thinking, has there been a
significant movement away from
Original Sin.

Second, Thorsell evaluates the
evidence from Paul. He shows
that Paul views Adam as the head
of humanity, and the ultimate
historical reason why Christ
came. Paul’s arguments are not
simply about the benefits of

Christ; they are about how Christprovides the historical solutionto the historical problem of sinintroduced by Adam’s first sin.Third, Thorsell looks atGenesis 3 to see whether Paul’s‘Original Sin’ reading of it istenable. Genesis 3 explains soFigure 2. The Fall is an integral part of the redemptivehistorical narrative of Scripture. Without it, Jesus’ death ismeaningless.